Seems unlikely that you meant bare_rock for way/387806282!

Well can't remember them, but marked as such on OSSV (together with pumping station), so probably noted it was a 'water board' site.

No! Looks very odd: accidental reuse of tags from another way?

Point of reference is garden centre where stopped for a coffee.

Yup, so would I: marking it as still construction might help getting the it finished.

It's closing down imminently, but I eventually realised that the Geograph picture shows it at the end of the building with the garden centre bit beyond. That gave me a chance by looking at the places I'd previously mapped as landuse=retail. I must say I'd hoped the detective work would have been easier.

Yes I know its called Aztec West, I have worked there over the years, but unless it's changed a lot it is not a residential area. Lots of industrial/business areas have churches: I can think of over 10 in Nottingham, but it doesnt make them villages.

Aztec West is not a village in any usual sense of the word. I think it would be better just to name the area of the Aztec West business park.

Hi, I'm just adding some more residential roads in Katsina city, and looking at Bing this one seems unpaved way/363735160, but you tagged it as paved. Before changing the tag I wanted to check to see if you have more up-to-date information.

Thanks,

SK53

I would back chillly up here: when there is no street name some local authorities maintaining NaPTAN data seem to feel that this field must be filled even when there is no corresponding actual name. In these cases the relevant tag to use is description. If a NaPTAN name does not correspond to one in OSGB Locator then it is advisable to be careful (see OSL Musical Chairs for this data). ALWAYS use two (independent) sources for this kind of edit.

Never replace tagged information with a note. At the very least add a description= or note= tag. But in practice the only really acceptable edit is to change the perfectly understandable prior value with the relevant conditional tags. Relatively few users (myself included) know the syntax of these, let alone that they exist.

Thinking about it, I suspect that NG2 1AA is a postcode associated originally with the Pennyfoot St location (or possibly even Station Street), which has been parked at the delivery office instead of being reused.

I very much doubt that the security guard checkpoint at the entrance to the Boots site has its own housenumber. Furthermore the Nottingham City Council GIS (which contains all Nottingham addresses) doesn't have any entry for "1 Thane Road". I'd be interested to know what your source was for this information.

Please dont add postcodes which dont have real geographical content to such buildings. There are probably hundreds of postcodes co-located at this building, none of which correspond to the postcode for the building. By adding such postcodes you will make it very difficult for people who use postcodes for routing, or for identifying post code districts, areas and sectors. I wrote extensive notes about this issue here http://sk53-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/british-postcodes-on-openstreetmap.html. (For reference Boots main postcodes are in postcode area NG80, but please don't add these either).

Yeah, what I wanted apparently was ref:signed=no, but I couldn't remember it as its not something I've used, but its useful to show that the ref is not available even after ground survey

This is not a correction, it is the conversion of one tag into a different one with a different meaning. unsigned_ref contains a known ref value which is not signed. The tag I added had the meaning that the ref was not known because it was unsigned.

Knew there was something missing

Thanks, was highway=stile.

Good spot; I imagine they are trees! They'll be London Planes too.

OSM can never be regarded as wholly reliable: anyone using any map as the sole navigation aid for paths in mountainous country is just asking for trouble. For instance for several years we had a path marked on the Hoernli ridge of the Matterhorn, and people mark Via Ferrata as paths to enable them to appear. Hikers must take responsibility for themselves, and that means informing themselves of local conditions.

Another example: things marked paths around Diavolezza http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ckc

I would suggest a sensible, albeit not entirely satisfactory, approach would be to add something like "(Perigloso)" after the path name.

The problem with doing what locals want is that often they want things not to be displayed for many reasons other than safety. I can make no judgement about this is this case.

Great to see some tidying up of footpaths around here: they were added long ago from 1940s maps in the hope of surveying them. Turned out there's far too much to do closer to N'ham. If the one you have added is a public right of way it helps if you also add a designation tag, see OSM wiki for values: designation=*#Rights_of_way_in_England_and_Wales